CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to activate their emergency response system by calling 911 and immediately initiating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed who were full-code and were found unresponsive and without respirations and a heart rate (Resident #82), in accordance with the American Heart Association and the Basic Life Support (BLS) for Healthcare Providers.
Resident #82 was a full-code status and had requested aggressive life-saving treatment despite medical decline. The resident was last seen on [DATE] at 7:58 AM, by the nurse who took vital signs, administered blood pressure medications, and left the resident in stable condition. On [DATE] at approximately 8:40 AM, the resident was found unresponsive by the Registered Dietician (RD) who immediately alerted the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who in response had a Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) accompany her to the resident's room. The resident was found unresponsive laying slumped over in bed. The LPN documented she began to panic and shake [him/her] and checked vital signs. The LPN later asked the CNA to help reposition the resident. The LPN proceeded to call the Physician and the family member on the telephone. The LPN while on the computer, noticed the resident was a full code status and went into full blown panic mode, and went back to the room to start CPR and the [family member] walked in the room to ask what was doing, and said to stop. The LPN proceeded to not administer CPR against the resident's code status request. The LPN left the room and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) asked if the LPN called 911 in which she responded no.
According to documentation, the facility never initiated CPR, called 911, or accessed the automated external defibrillator (AED; a device used to deliver an electric shock to the heart to restore heart rhythm) in an attempt to provide life-saving measures. Resident #82 was pronounced dead at 10:04 AM, by a physician [name redacted]; cause was an unexpected death.
The LPN was terminated from employment at the facility and survey team attempted to reach the nurse multiple times by telephone for an interview and were unsuccessful. There was no documented evidence a Code Blue (a signal used to communicate an acute medical emergency) was initiated, or that CPR, or 911 was activated upon becoming aware resident was unresponsive. According to NN on [DATE], 911 was not called until 9:10 AM. There was no documented evidence once paramedics arrived that the resident was evaluated for intubation, or the use of the AED.
Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] revealed all nurses were certified in CPR, so there was always someone in the facility that could perform CPR. The DON provided a copy of the LPN's valid CPR certification.
The facility's failure to appropriately initiate CPR and the appropriate activation of emergency response (including calling 911) for a resident who was a full-code and was found to be unresponsive without a heart rate and respirations, placed all residents who were a full-code at risk for imminent death if found to be unresponsive without a pulse and without respirations. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, when the resident was found unresponsive and ran until [DATE] after in-services of staff began, and the LPN was terminated at 3:00 PM. The IJ was Past Non-Compliance.
The facility was notified of the Past Non-Compliance IJ situation on [DATE] at 3:51 PM. The facility was back in compliance when they addressed this situation by calling 911; suspending and then terminating the LPN upon investigation; all staff were in-serviced on code-status; when to initiate CPR; documentation in an emergency situation and communication with nursing management; performed a mock code; and in-serviced all Agency staff on facility policy.
The evidence was as follows:
Reference: The American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 . guidelines every five years for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC). These guidelines reflect global resuscitation science and treatment recommendations . In the guidelines, AHA has established evidenced-based decision-making guidelines for initiating CPR when cardiac or respiratory arrest occurs in or out of the hospital. AHA urges all potential rescuers to initiate CPR unless: 1) a valid Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order is in place; 2) obvious clinical signs of clinical death (e.g., rigor mortis, dependent lividity, decapitation, transection, or decomposition) are present; or 3) initiating CPR could cause injury or peril to the rescuer. AHA guidelines for CPR provide the standard for the American Red Cross, state EMS agencies, healthcare providers, and the general public.
On [DATE] at 9:17 AM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #82 who had expired in the facility.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2022 with diagnoses which included malignant neoplasm of hypopharynx and retromolar area (cancer of the throat and oral cavity), diabetes, pancytopenia (a reduction in all three major cellular elements of blood), essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure).
A review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation dated [DATE] at 12:45 PM, reflected the resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with clear speech.
A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) included a physician's order (PO) dated [DATE], for full code status.
A review of the Progress Notes (PN) for Resident #82 which included the following notes:
A Nursing Note (NN) dated [DATE] at 6:30 AM, written by the resident's 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift Registered Nurse (RN), included the resident was toileted three times during this shift; alert and verbally responsive; blood sugar done and coverage given as ordered; left comfortable in bed, call bell with-in reach; no signs or symptoms of pain or discomfort noted.
A Health Status Note (HSN) dated [DATE] at 9:08 AM, written by the LPN, revealed the resident had expired around 8:45 AM; feeding tube (a tube inserted through the wall of the abdomen into the stomach which can be used to give medications or liquids) disconnected; the resident was bathed and growned by nurse and CNA; family member called spoke with [name redacted] explained the situation and he/she hung up the phone; Physician notified.
A NN dated [DATE] at 9:10 AM, written by the Infection Preventionist/LPN (IP/LPN), revealed upon entering this building this nurse was called to resident's room; resident was noted with no blood pressure or no pulse; 911 called immediately as resident was a full code.
A NN dated [DATE] at 10:10 AM, written by the IP/LPN, included paramedics on scene; no blood pressure or heart rate maintained; resident was pronounced by physician [name redacted] at 10:04 AM with family at bedside.
There was no documented evidence that 911 was called at the time the resident was found non-responsive; CPR was immediately initiated or initiated at all; or a AED was used.
On [DATE] at 9:33 AM, the surveyor attempted to call the LPN on the telephone, a male party answered, the surveyor stated his/her name and the purpose of the call, and the call was disconnected. The surveyor placed the call again, there was no answer, and the surveyor left a message on the voicemail to please return the call as soon as possible. LPN did not return surveyor's call.
On [DATE] at 9:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the IP/LPN who stated Resident #82 had been admitted to the facility for rehabilitation; was very sickly and expired at the facility. She further stated she was not in the building when the situation occurred on [DATE], she walked into the building with the paramedic arriving right after.
On [DATE] at 10:19 AM, the surveyor interviewed the DON who stated she was familiar with Resident #82 that he/she had been at the facility for a short term, had cancer, and was ailing. She further stated the resident had expired at the facility and had been taken care of that day by an Agency Nurse (LPN). The DON stated she had interviewed the LPN who stated she had been flustered and had gone into the room; she tried to get his/her code status; left the room and called the Physician and family member; and then she called 911; she did not start CPR. When the surveyor asked the DON what the facility's procedure was when you find a resident unresponsive, she responded when you find someone unresponsive, you should call the code, then call 911. The DON stated she did have a copy of the LPN's witness statement; she conducted an investigation.
On [DATE] at 10:35 AM, the DON provided the surveyor with the LPN's statement dated [DATE], which indicated the nurse was assigned to the resident that morning. The resident was seen during rounds with their feeding tube running; they took vital signs; preformed mouth care; and administered medication for their blood pressure of 150/99. The resident was alert and did not verbalize any discomfort, no facial grimacing, and breathing unlabored. Around 8:40 AM, the RD informed her the resident was slumped over leaning in their bed. The LPN stated she rushed to the resident's room with the CNA and noted the resident was slumped over and non-responsive. The LPN began to panic and she shook the resident and took vital signs, but there was no pulse. The LPN asked the CNA to get the DON, and the CNA informed them they were coming. The LPN reported being so flustered trying to think what to do. The LPN called the Physician and then called the resident's family member. When on the computer, the LPN noticed the resident was a full-code and went into full blown panic mode, and she went back into the room to start CPR. The family member was in the room at this time and did not want me to start CPR. The LPN left the room to give them privacy and saw the LNHA who asked if 911 was called. The LPN stated no and proceeded to call 911.
On [DATE] at 10:54 AM, the surveyor interviewed the DON in the presence of the survey team. When the surveyor asked where the code status of a resident can be found, the DON replied all residents' code statuses were located in the electronic medical record on the opening screen; as well as a hard copy was included on the physician's orders which were printed monthly and placed in the residents' hard charts. The DON stated the facility also had a backup system for recalling a few hours of information if the electricity or electronic medical record were unavailable. The DON stated that the CNAs had access to residents' code statuses in their task manager. The DON stated she was not in the building at the time of Resident #82's death, but stated every nurse should know they should call a code if the resident was unresponsive and begin CPR if applicable. The DON stated she also thought the problem was the family member told the LPN to stop CPR when the LPN tried to initiate it. When asked if the family had the authority to stop the CPR, the DON stated I do not know.
On [DATE] at 11:08 AM, the DON stated the family member was not the Power of Attorney (POA; authority to make decisions on behalf of another) so therefore would not have the authority to cease CPR.
On [DATE] at 11:49 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RD in the presence of the survey team. The RD stated she came into Resident #82's room early in the morning, maybe between 8:00 AM and 8:05 AM, and the resident was turned onto his/her side and belly and feeding tube was on administering enteral formula, and the formula appeared to be spilled on the floor. The RD stated she called out the resident's name, he/she did not respond, so she then got the LPN immediately. The LPN went to the room called his/her name, and the RD left the room as the CNA closed the door behind them.
On [DATE] at 12:01 PM, the surveyor attempted to interview the CNA via telephone, she did not answer, and surveyor left voicemail to return the call.
On [DATE] at 12:22 PM, the surveyor attempted to call the LPN again, surveyor left another message to call back. LPN did not return surveyor's call.
On [DATE] at 1:09 PM, the DON provided the survey team a copy of the facility's Incident Investigation Summary for Resident #82.
On [DATE] at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed resident's Physician and Medical Director (MD) in the presence of the survey team. The MD stated he evaluated the residents and reviewed the medications and other paperwork on admission to the facility, one of those would be code status. If the resident had a Practitioner Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST; a form that specifies the type of medical treatments a person wants to receive during serious illness) form, it would be reviewed, and he would make a physician's order for the code status. The MD stated full-code status meant everything should be done, CPR started, 911 called and advanced life support as well with use of an AED. The MD stated CPR should be started immediately if a person had no pulse or respirations, then immediately tell a staff member to call a code, then follow protocol of airway and breathing, and circulation. The staff member would continue CPR until paramedics arrived to take over. When asked if a family member could stop CPR, the MD replied only if the family member was the medical POA could they authorize staff to stop CPR. At this time, the surveyor reviewed the LPN's statement with the MD who confirmed 911 and CPR should have been first. The MD also stated the patient was always first, not notifying the Physician or family, and the nurse should never leave a resident during a code.
On [DATE] at 1:59 PM, the survey team interviewed the DON, who confirmed Resident #82 was a full code status which meant the resident wanted all treatments to revive them including being sent to the hospital. The DON continued if staff walked into a room and a resident was unresponsive, they must call a code; tell another staff to call 911 because you should never leave the resident alone; start CPR; have another staff member grab the crash cart which contained the AED and oxygen. The DON further stated all nurses who worked in the facility were certified in CPR, so there was always someone in the facility that could administer CPR, and staff should continue administering CPR until paramedics arrive to take over. The DON stated the LPN stated she had been flustered, and confirmed she did not call the code so 911 was not immediately called and CPR was not immediately initiated. The DON also stated the family member did not have the authority to stop CPR so the LPN should have initiated it. The DON stated the facility conducted an investigation to determine why the LPN who was an Agency Nurse did not call the code. The DON stated she informed the LPN's Agency that the facility did not want her back because of her incompetency.
On [DATE] at 2:21 PM, the surveyor reviewed LPN's witness statement to the DON who stated disregard the LPN's Progress Note which indicated the resident was expired at 8:45 AM, the resident was pronounced dead at 10:04 AM after the paramedics arrived. The DON confirmed the LPN had not acted in accordance with professional standards of practice in regard to following resident's code status preference.
On [DATE] at 2:41 PM, the survey team interviewed the LNHA who stated he had worked [DATE], and stated while in building, saw the LPN in the hallway outside of Resident #82's room and the LPN made him aware the resident was found unresponsive. The LNHA asked the code status which he was told was full-code, so he asked if the LPN if she called 911. The LNHA stated the LPN stated no and instructed her to call. The LNHA stated as a result of their conversation the LPN called 911, but he did not recall when the paramedics arrived. The LNHA further stated there were no other nurses helping the LPN when he was there.
The facility's failure to ensure the appropriate activation of emergency response for a resident who was a full-code status by calling 911 and initiating CPR when the resident was found to be unresponsive without a heart rate and respirations, placed all residents who were a full code at risk for imminent death if found to be unresponsive without a pulse and without respirations.
This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. The IJ was identified on [DATE], and the LNHA and DON were notified of the IJ at 3:51 PM. The IJ was a Past Non-Compliance IJ that ran from [DATE] at 8:40 AM, when Resident #82 was found unresponsive to [DATE] at 10:04 AM, when the paramedics arrived and pronounced the resident dead. The facility was back in compliance when they addressed this situation by immediately suspending the LPN upon investigation which led to her termination; in-servicing of all staff on emergency situations including CPR; a mock code performed with all staff; and in-servicing of all Agency nurses as scheduled on facility process. This was verified by the survey team on-site on [DATE].
On [DATE] at 7:46 AM, the surveyor interviewed the CNA assigned to Resident #82 on [DATE] via telephone. The CNA stated she was in another resident's room performing care down the hall and she went into the hallway to retrieve supplies when the LPN called her to come to Resident #82's room. The CNA stated she went into the room and the resident was not responding; the LPN shook him/her; checked the pulse, resident's stomach, and ankles; and rubbed their sternum. The LPN then instructed her to get the DON, who was not in the building, and she immediately returned to the LPN to let her know. The CNA confirmed she did not inform any other staff members; she just did what she was told to do by the LPN. The LPN then instructed her to help clean-up the resident. When asked what clean-up meant, the CNA stated the resident was soiled so they changed their incontinent brief and shorts putting the resident in a gown. The CNA stated the resident's top portion of his/her body was folded over and their knees were on the ground as if they rolled over; it did not appear as if the resident fell. The CNA stated that the LPN did not tell her if the resident had a pulse, but stated the resident did not look alive to her. The CNA stated she did not recall the LPN calling a Code Blue and the LPN did not perform CPR. The CNA further stated anyone can call a code; that she assumed the nurse did not call the code because she was already aware of the resident's code status. The CNA stated she was CPR certified, but also did not initiate CPR.
A review of the facility's Incident Investigation Summary included a copy of the LPN's CPR certification. The LPN had a CPR Adult, child, infant and AED training valid from [DATE] until [DATE].
A review of the facility provided daily staffing sheet for [DATE] revealed on the day shift from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM, there were four nurses assigned to work and eight CNAs assigned to work that day.
A review of the facility's Code Blue or Code Status Process policy dated effective [DATE] and revised [DATE], included a Code Blue is the standardized signal used to indicate any acute medical emergency (i.e. respiratory distress, reduced function due to arrhythmia, cardiac arrest or status epilepticus). Every individual whose vital signs are not life sustaining or unobtainable is a candidate for resuscitation unless there has been written patient care wishes to withhold treatment and an existing order in place. It is the responsibility of the licensed nurse to check for the status code order .the first responder is the staff member who discovers an unresponsive individual. The will: call for help - call out to other staff members .He or she stays with the individual .Administer assistance to level of their expertise. Verify unresponsive, absence of respirations or absence of pulse and start CPR if trained .The second responder should be a staff member trained in BLS. They will: alert the receptionist to call Code Blue .bring the crash cart to the Code location. The third responder will be responsible for calling 911 .monitor and assist with CPR if required .
NJAC 8:39-9.6(g)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On [DATE] at 9:17 AM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #82 who had expired in the facility.
The s...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On [DATE] at 9:17 AM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #82 who had expired in the facility.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #82.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2022 with diagnoses which included malignant neoplasm of hypopharynx and retromolar area (cancer of the throat and oral cavity), diabetes, pancytopenia (a reduction in all three major cellular elements of blood), essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure).
A review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation dated [DATE] at 12:45 PM, reflected the resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with clear speech.
A review of the OSR included a physician's order (PO) dated [DATE], for Kapspargo Sprinkle Capsule ER 24 Hour 25 milligram (mg) (metoprolol succinate); give 1 capsule via gastrostomy tube (g-tube; a tube inserted through the wall of the abdomen into the stomach which can be used to give medications or liquids) one time a day for hypertension; hold (do not administer) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 110 or heart rate (HR) less than 60.
A review of the corresponding [DATE] Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the 9:00 AM metoprolol succinate dose was administered on [DATE] with a HR of 59, which was less than 60 and should have been held.
On [DATE] at 11:19 AM, the surveyor interviewed the facility's Consultant Pharmacist (CP) via telephone. When asked if a blood pressure medication order had a parameter to hold for a SBP less than 110 or a HR less than 60, and the nurse documented a BP of 150/99 and HR of 59, should the nurse have administered the medication? The CP responded if there was a hold parameter, the nurse should have held the medication as the Physician instructed to.
On [DATE] at 11:55 AM, the surveyor interviewed the DON in presence of the survey team who stated there were hold parameters for blood pressure medications because a resident could be at risk for falls if the blood pressure dropped too low. The DON further stated that if a physician's order had hold parameters for either the BP or HR, the nurse was expected to hold the medication if the BP or HR was outside the parameters. At this time, the surveyor reviewed with the resident's [DATE] MAR for the metoprolol succinate, and the DON confirmed the nurse should not have administered the medication on [DATE] because the resident's HR was below 60.
On [DATE] at 12:20 PM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's Physician/Medical Director (MD) via telephone. When asked what the purpose of hold parameters were, the MD responded to manage symptoms; you do not want the resident to be hypertensive (high blood pressure) or hypotensive (low blood pressure). The MD stated if the physician's order had a parameter to hold for a HR of 60 or lower, then the nurse was expected to not administer the medication. The MD stated if the nurse called and informed him that the BP was 150/99 and the HR was 59; he would have instructed the nurse to administer the medication. The MD confirmed that the professional standard of practice would be to check the parameters and hold the medication as prescribed when necessary. The nurse should not administer the medication outside the parameters without calling the Physician for instructions.
A review of the facility's Medication Administration policy dated reviewed 6/2022, included .Hold Parameters: check blood pressure and/or pulse rate immediately prior to pouring . The policy did not include following physician's order regarding medication hold parameters.
NJAC 8:39-11.2(b); 27.1(a)
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) communicate a hospice recommendation for a toe treatment to the physician and b.) to follow hold parameters for the administration of a blood pressure medication in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 24 residents (Resident #66 and #82) reviewed for standards of practice and was evidenced by the following:
Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as casefinding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist.
Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of casefinding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist.
1. On [DATE] at 12:00 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #66 lying in bed enjoying a visitor playing a guitar. The visitor identified themself as being from hospice.
On [DATE] at 9:13 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #66 lying in bed positioned upright eating potato chips. Their legs were positioned in two slotted pillows, and they wore non-skid socks on their feet. The resident stated they were on hospice care, and someone from hospice visited them daily.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #66.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2021 with diagnoses which included end stage heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), and breast cancer.
A review of the most recent annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), and assessment tool dated [DATE], reflected a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out 15, which indicated a fully intact cognition. A further review reflected the resident received hospice care.
A review of the individualized person-centered care plan reflected a focus area initiated [DATE], for hospice care for end stage heart failure. Interventions included to communicate needs to hospice to work together to obtain comfort and care for resident; give support and reassurance to resident and family members as needed; hospice to be part of the interdisciplinary care team; and plan of care to be reviewed by the interdisciplinary care team, resident, family, and hospice as needed.
A review of the Hospice Recommendations included a recommendation dated [DATE] to right great toe at 3 o'clock lateral to nail bed cleanse skin tear with wound cleanser or normal saline solution; pat dry; apply triple antibiotic ointment to wound bed; cover with band aide; change daily for fourteen days. The wound size was 0.5 centimeters (cm) by 0.1 cm by 0.1 cm deep with brown eschar (dead skin tissue cast off from the surface of the skin or a scab) on non-adherent pad of band aide with no drainage or odor. The Hospice Nurse indicated she made the facility's Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) aware of the order.
A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) did not include this treatment as a physician order.
A review of the corresponding [DATE] Treatment Administration Record (TAR) did not reflect the resident received this treatment.
On [DATE] at 1:17 PM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's Certified Nursing Aide (CNA #1) who stated the resident was particular with who cared for them and preferred to have care done at 5:00 AM by the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM aide and by their Hospice Aide. CNA #1 stated their Hospice Aide came daily and provided care during the day shift.
On [DATE] at 1:21 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed with their Hospice Aide performing personal grooming.
On [DATE] at 1:33 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Nursing Supervisor/LPN who stated after a resident was evaluated for hospice care, the nurse called the Physician to receive an order for hospice care. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN stated that the Hospice Aide came daily Monday through Friday to provide care, and the Hospice Nurse came too, but he could not speak to the frequency. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN stated any recommendation the Hospice Nurse had, they documented it in the resident's paper medical record and informed the facility's nurse. It was the facility nurse's responsibility to communicate the recommendation with the Physician to obtain a physician order. At this time, the surveyor reviewed with the Nursing Supervisor/LPN the Hospice Recommendation from [DATE]. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN confirmed LPN #1 was the nurse documented as informed and confirmed that the physician order was not obtained and there was no documentation as to why the Physician would not want to carry out the recommendation. The surveyor requested to observe the resident's wound.
On [DATE] at 1:46 PM, the surveyor accompanied by another surveyor and the Nursing Supervisor/LPN went into Resident #66's room to observe the wound. The Hospice Aide removed the resident's non-skid sock, and the Nursing Supervisor/LPN proceeded to remove a band aide from the toe. The surveyor asked when that band aide was applied, and both the resident and Hospice Aide stated the Hospice Nurse applied the band aide last week during their visit, but they could not recall the exact day. The resident stated the facility's nurse did not change the band aide daily. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN attempted to locate the wound and he stated it appeared to have healed. The Hospice Aide confirmed the wound had improved from last week based on the appearance.
On [DATE] at 1:58 PM, the surveyor interviewed LPN #1 who stated the resident was on hospice and the Hospice Aide came daily and the Hospice Nurse came weekly. LPN #1 stated if the Hospice Nurse had a recommendation, they would document in the resident's paper medical record and flag the page. LPN #1 stated sometimes the Hospice Nurse in addition communicated directly with her, but it was her responsibility to daily check the resident's paper medical record. When asked what the process was after receiving a recommendation from hospice, LPN #1 stated she would inform the Nursing Supervisor/LPN because she was new to the facility and was unaware how to input a physician order. LPN #1 stated she had not received a recommendation from hospice yet. At this time, the surveyor reviewed the Hospice Recommendation dated [DATE], and LPN #1 denied seeing that recommendation. LPN #1 confirmed she did not administer this treatment to the resident today.
On [DATE] at 2:08 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated once a resident had a physician order for hospice care, the Hospice Aide and Hospice Nurse along with the facility staff would care for the resident. The DON stated any recommendations made by the Hospice Nurse were documented in the resident's paper medical record and flagged for the staff. It was the responsibility of the nurse on duty to review the chart to ensure no new recommendations. Any new recommendations, the nurse would call the Physician to communicate the recommendation and obtain a physician's order if the Physician choose to carry-out the recommendation. The DON confirmed if the Physician did not want to carry-out the recommendation, the nurse had to document in the medical record.
On [DATE] at 9:03 AM, the DON in the presence of the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Regional Infection Preventionist, Director of Clinical Services, and survey team acknowledged that the Hospice Recommendation from [DATE] was not communicated to the Physician in accordance with professional standards of practice.
A review of the facility's Hospice Program policy dated reviewed 6/2022, included .when a resident participates in the hospice program, a coordinated plan of care between the facility, hospice agency and resident/family will be developed and shall include directives for managing pain and other uncomfortable symptoms .the facility and hospice will identify the specific services that will be provided by each entity and this information will be communicated in the plan of care; the hospice and facility will communicate with each other when any changes are indicated or made to the plan of care .
A review of the facility's undated Order Transcription policy included .the 11-7 shift will do a 24 hours chart check to ensure all orders are being carried out properly.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered without error of 5% or more. Du...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered without error of 5% or more. During the medication observation performed on 1/30/23, the surveyors observed two nurses administer medication to five ( 5) residents. There were 28 opportunities, and two (2) errors were observed, which calculated to a medication administration error rate of 7.14%. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 36) that were administered medications by 1 of 2 nurses.
The deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
On 1/30/23 at 9:15 AM, during the medication administration observation, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) obtain a blood sugar (BS) result of 298 and stated Resident #36 had a physician's order (PO) for a sliding scale coverage of insulin; meaning that certain BS results corresponded to the amount of insulin to be administered. There was no observed breakfast tray in the resident's room.
Upon returning to the medication cart, the surveyor with the LPN reviewed the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The LPN stated that according to the PO on the MAR, the resident was to receive 6 units of insulin for the sliding scale and 14 units of the lispro (Humalog) insulin to total 20 units of insulin. Humalog insulin was fast acting insulin that was used to control high blood sugar. The surveyor observed the LPN prepare six medications for Resident #36; which included the lispro (Humalog). The surveyor observed the LPN administer the insulin subcutaneously to the resident's left upper abdomen using an insulin syringe. (Error #1)
At that time, the LPN stated the resident had breakfast and the resident confirmed that they ate their breakfast.
The LPN then reviewed the MAR and stated the resident had an order for Lantus (insulin glargine) 18 Units. Lantus insulin was a long-acting insulin that helped control high blood sugar levels. The surveyor then observed the LPN prepare, then administered the insulin subcutaneously to the resident's right upper abdomen using an insulin syringe. (Error #2)
On 1/30/23 at 9:45 AM, at the medication cart, the surveyor interviewed the LPN who stated that the usual insulin technique was to administer insulin before the resident ate breakfast. The surveyor with the LPN reviewed the MAR for Resident # 36 which revealed the insulin ordered was displaying pink. The LPN stated that when medication orders displayed pink, it was a computer alert that indicated that the medication was late to be administered. Further review indicated the lispro insulin was plotted to be administered for 7:30 AM and the Lantus insulin was plotted to be administered for 8:00 AM. The LPN stated that the insulin administration for both the insulins were late and should have been administered on time and before the resident had eaten breakfast.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #36.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM).
A review of the most recent annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/2/22, reflected the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, which indicated a fully intact cognition.
A review of the January 2023 MAR included a PO dated 9/1/21, for insulin lispro solution 100 unit/milliliters (unit/mL); inject 14 units subcutaneously two times a day every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for DM on dialysis days; plotted to be administered at 7:30 AM.
Further review of the January 2023 MAR included a PO dated 8/25/21, for Humalog solution 100 units/ml (insulin lispro), inject as per sliding scale: if 0 - 150 = 0 units; 151 - 200 =2 units; 201 - 250 = 4 units; 251 - 300 = 6 units; 301 - 350 = 8 units; 351 - 400 = 10 units; 401 - 450 = 12 units; 451- 999 = 14 units and call the physician. Administer subcutaneously three times a day every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for DM on dialysis days; plotted to be administered at 7:30 AM.
Further review of the January 2023 MAR reflected a PO dated 10/25/21, for Lantus solution 100 unit/ml (insulin glargine) inject 18 units subcutaneously two times a day for DM; plotted to be administered at 8:00 AM.
On 1/30/23 at 9:50 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Infection Preventionist/LPN (IP/LPN) who stated it was important to administer insulin on time because of the peak time of the medication and because of the blood sugar in the body.
On 1/30/23 at 1:50 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated the insulin orders should have been administered at the times ordered by the physician. The DON stated she did not know why the nurse was late with the insulin administrations.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), DON, and IP/LPN. The DON acknowledged that medications should be administered on time.
A review of the facility's Medication Administration policy dated reviewed 6/2022, included .medications to be administered at the right time because medications are scheduled to avoid drug/food interactions and per manufacturer recommendations .
According to information from the American Diabetes Association on Insulin Basics included rapid acting insulin begins to work about 15 minutes after injection. In addition, information on Insulin Routines reflected that Insulin shots are most effective when you take them so that insulin goes to work when glucose from your food starts to enter your blood. For example, regular insulin works best if you take it 30 minutes before you eat.
According to the Lantus prescribing information included under indications and usage Lantus is a long-acting human insulin analog indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type I diabetes mellitus and in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus .Dosage and Administration .the insulin to be administered subcutaneously at the same time every day .
NJAC 8:39-11.2(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. On 1/27/23 at 10:13 AM, the surveyor accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD) conducted a tour of the kitchen. During the tour, the surveyor observed the FSD pull down her surgical mask and c...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 1/27/23 at 10:13 AM, the surveyor accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD) conducted a tour of the kitchen. During the tour, the surveyor observed the FSD pull down her surgical mask and continued to talk to the surveyor. When asked if the FSD should be wearing her mask to cover her mouth and nose, the FSD confirmed yes and proceeded to cover her mouth and nose with her mask. The FSD then proceeded to open the reach-in refrigerator and reached her hand into the refrigerator. At this time, the surveyor asked if there was anything she should have done after touching her mask? The FSD acknowledged she should have washed her hands and proceeded to the sink to perform hand hygiene appropriately using soap and water.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the DON in the presence of the LNHA, IP/LPN, Regional Infection Preventionist, Director of Clinical Services, and the survey team confirmed the FSD should have washed her hands after touching her surgical mask.
A review of the facility's undated Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy included .in most situations, the preferred method is washing hands with soap and water. If hands are not visibly soiled, the use of an alcohol-based hand rub may be used for the following situations: .after contact with inanimate objects .
NJAC 8:39-19.4; 27.1(a)
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) maintain proper infection control practices identified for 1 of 2 nurses observed during medication administration and for 1 of 4 nurses interviewed during medication storage and b.) perform hand hygiene after 1 of 6 observed kitchen staff pull their surgical mask down and then back up. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
1. On 1/30/23 at 9:05 AM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) prepare to administer medication to Resident #59. LPN #1 entered the resident's room with an infra-red thermometer scan and obtained a temperature of 97.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F). LPN #1 went to the medication cart and placed the thermometer on top of the cart without disinfecting the thermometer. The surveyor observed LPN #1 prepare and administer Resident #59 medications.
On 1/30/23 at 9:15 AM the surveyor observed LPN #1 obtain a blood sugar using a blood glucose meter for Resident #36. The blood sugar was 298. LPN #1 returned to the medication cart and placed the blood glucose meter on top of the medication cart. LPN #1 then placed the blood glucose meter into the top drawer of the medication cart.
On 1/30/23 at 9:45 AM, the surveyor interviewed LPN #1 who stated that she was not aware that she did not disinfect the thermometer and thought she did. LPN #1 acknowledged the glucometer was not disinfected, and that the thermometer and the glucose meter should have been cleaned with the disinfectant wipes after each use.
On 2/1/23 at 10:43 AM, the surveyor inspected the [NAME] Wing medication cart in the presence of LPN #2. The surveyor observed an UltraTrak Complete blood glucose meter inside the medication cart and interviewed LPN #2 at this time. LPN #2 stated that she used the blood glucose meter during her shift to check the blood sugars of several residents before breakfast and lunch. The surveyor asked LPN #2 about the way that she cleaned and disinfected the blood glucose meter between residents. LPN #2 stated that she used 70% isopropyl alcohol prep pads. The surveyor asked if LPN #2 waited a set amount of time after using the alcohol prep pads. LPN #2 stated, I never really counted but that by the time she walked to the next room that the blood glucose meter was ready. LPN #2 stated that the container of disinfectant wipes was too large to bring into resident rooms and that was why she used alcohol prep pads. The surveyor asked how many blood glucose meters were in the medication cart? LPN #2 responded that there should be two blood glucose meters in the medication cart, but that there was only one.
On 2/1/23 at 11:33 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Infection Preventionist/LPN (IP/LPN). The IP/LPN stated that staff were expected to disinfect the blood glucose meter between residents using disinfectant wipes and to wait two minutes before using the blood glucose meter to test the blood sugar on the next resident. The IP/LPN stated that alcohol prep pads were not an acceptable disinfectant to use on a blood glucose meter.
The surveyor reviewed the list of residents on the [NAME] Wing who received regular blood sugar monitoring. The list of residents included Residents #1, #19, #36, #59, #60, #62, #65.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #1:
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in September of 2022 with diagnoses that included human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease (a virus that attacks the body's immune system and can be transmitted through contact with infected blood).
On 2/1/23 at 1:07 PM, the surveyor conducted a follow-up interview with LPN #2. LPN #2 stated that Resident #1 had HIV and that their blood sugar was monitored with the same blood glucose meter as the other [NAME] Wing residents. The surveyor asked if there was a reason why a resident with HIV did not have a dedicated blood glucose meter that only they used. LPN #2 stated that she started at the facility three months ago and that, this is how it's been.
On 2/1/23 at 1:11 PM, the surveyor conducted a follow-up interview with the IP/LPN. The IP/LPN stated that it was not discussed with her when Resident #1 was admitted whether the resident should have a dedicated blood glucose meter.
On 2/2/23 at 11:52 AM, the surveyor informed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) of the above concerns with the blood glucose meters. The surveyor asked if this was how they would expect a nurse to disinfect a shared blood glucose meter? The DON responded, no.
On 2/2/23 at 3:15 PM, the surveyor informed the LNHA and DON that LPN #1 did not sanitize the thermometer and glucose meter after each use.
On 2/3/22 at 9:03 AM, the DON in the presence of the LNHA, IP/LPN, Regional Infection Preventionist, Director of Clinical Services, and the survey team confirmed that the nurses should disinfect the thermometer and blood glucose monitors after each use with disinfectant wipes.
On 2/6/23 at 3:04 PM, the surveyor interviewed the IP/LPN who stated that the importance of disinfecting reusable equipment would be because they do not want to transfer organisms between residents, and she also stated that disinfectant wipes should have been used after use for both the blood glucose meter and thermometer.
A review of the facility's Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment policy dated reviewed 12/2022, included .reusable items are to be cleaned/disinfected between before reuse by another resident .
A review of the facility's Blood Glucose Meter Cleansing and Disinfecting policy dated reviewed 9/2022, included .the glucose meter should be cleansed between each resident's use. The meter needs to be disinfected with a germicidal wipe allow to air dry .
A review of the manufacturer's instructions, UltraTrak Complete Sample Policy and Procedures dated 5/11, included the blood glucose meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient test . to disinfect the meter a pre-moistened disinfecting wipe needed to be used .
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to report to the New J...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to report to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) an allegation of staff to resident neglect that occurred on [DATE] when the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) failed to call 911 and initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for a resident (Resident #82) with a full-code status. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 investigations reviewed, and was evidenced by the following:
On [DATE] at 9:17 AM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #82 who had expired in the facility.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #82.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2022 with diagnoses which included malignant neoplasm of hypopharynx and retromolar area (cancer of the throat and oral cavity), diabetes, pancytopenia (a reduction in all three major cellular elements of blood), essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure).
A review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation dated [DATE] at 12:45 PM, reflected the resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with clear speech.
A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) included a physician's order (PO) dated [DATE], for full code status.
A review of the Progress Notes reflected a Nursing Note (NN) dated [DATE] at 9:08 AM, written by the LPN who indicated the resident expired around 8:45 AM; feeding tube (a tube inserted through the wall of the abdomen into the stomach which can be used to give medications or liquids) disconnected, bathed, and groomed by Nurse and Certified Nursing Aide (CNA). Family member called and explained the situation; Physician called.
An additional NN dated [DATE] at 9:10 AM, written by the Infection Preventionist/LPN (IP/LPN) indicated upon entering the building this nurse was called to resident's room; resident was noted with no blood pressure, no pulse, 911 was immediately called since resident was a full-code.
A NN dated [DATE] at 10:10 AM, written by the IP/LPN indicated paramedics on scene, no blood pressure or heart rate maintained. Resident was pronounced dead by physician [name redacted] at 10:04 AM with family at bedside.
On [DATE] at 9:33 AM, the surveyor attempted a phone interview with the LPN who did not answer. The surveyor left a message to call back.
On [DATE] at 9:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the IP/LPN who stated Resident #82 expired at the facility. The IP/LPN stated she was not in the building when the situation occurred, she walked into the building with the paramedics arriving right after. The IP/LPN continued a family member was in with the resident, so she offered emotional support. The LPN, who was an Agency Nurse, was the nurse at the time of the death.
On [DATE] at 10:19 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated Resident #82 was a short-term resident at the facility and was very sick with cancer. The day the resident expired, there was an Agency Nurse (LPN) who was flustered when she went into the resident's room; she tried to get the code status; called the Physician and family member; called 911, but she did not start CPR. The DON stated she obtained a statement from the LPN and conducted an investigation.
On [DATE] at 10:35 AM, the DON provided the surveyor with the LPN's statement dated [DATE], which indicated the nurse was assigned to the resident that morning. The resident was seen during rounds with their feeding tube running; they took vital signs; preformed mouth care; and administered medication for their blood pressure of 150/99. The resident was alert and did not verbalize any discomfort, no facial grimacing, and breathing unlabored. Around 8:40 AM, the Registered Dietitian (RD) informed her the resident was slumped over leaning in their bed. The LPN stated she rushed to the resident's room with the CNA and noted the resident was slumped over an non-responsive. The LPN began to panic and she shook the resident and took vital signs, but there was no pulse. The LPN asked the CNA to get to the DON, and the CNA informed they were coming. The LPN reported being so flustered trying to think what to do. The LPN called the Physician and then called the resident's family member. When on the computer, the LPN noticed the resident was a full-code and went into full blown panic mode, and she went back into the room to start CPR. The family member was in the room at this time and did not want me to start CPR. The LPN left the room to give them privacy and saw the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) who asked if 911 was called. The LPN stated no and proceeded to call 911.
On [DATE] at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director (MD) who stated a full-code status meant the resident wanted everything done; which included calling 911; initiating basic CPR or advanced CPR with an automated external defibrillator (AED; a device used to deliver an electric shock to the heart to restore heart rhythm). The MD stated if the resident was a full-code and non-responsive, the nurse would immediately call a code and all staff would be helping assist. One staff member would immediately call 911, while another staff would start CPR until the paramedics arrived who would then take over. The MD stated that unless the family member was the medical Power of Attorney (POA), they could not authorize staff to stop CPR.
At this time, the surveyor reviewed the LPN's statement with the MD. The surveyor asked if the LPN should have called the Physician first and then the family member when the resident was non-responsive, the MD replied no, you would call 911 first and initiate CPR which were the important part of the code. The MD stated the patient was always first, not notifying the Physician or family, and the nurse should never leave the resident during a code.
On [DATE] at 1:58 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON who confirmed the resident was a full-code status which meant the resident wanted all treatments to revive them including being sent to the hospital and CPR. If the resident was a full code and non-responsive, the first thing the nurse would do was call the code and other staff would come. The LPN should never leave the resident, other staff would be delegated to check the code status, call 911, start CPR, grab the crash cart which contained the AED and oxygen. The LPN who was CPR certified would have continued to perform CPR until the paramedics arrived and took over. The DON confirmed the LPN did not call the code, and 911 was not notified immediately, and CPR was not initiated immediately or at all. The DON also confirmed the family member was not the POA, so the nurse should have initiated CPR despite the family's request not to. The DON stated the facility conducted an investigation to determine why the LPN who was an Agency Nurse did not call the code. The DON stated she informed the LPN's Agency that the facility did not want her back because of her incompetency, but acknowledged she did not notify the NJDOH of the incident and should have.
On [DATE] at 10:21 AM, the surveyor re-interviewed the DON who stated she choose to investigate this incident to determine where the system breakdown was because this was basic nursing.
A review of the facility's Incident/Accident Investigating and Reporting Policy and Procedure dated updated 2/2022, included .in the event the incident is found to be reportable based on the DOH reportable guidelines, the necessary information will be reported to the DOH in a timely manner.
NJAC 8:39-9.4(f)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) assess and educate a resident on self-administration of oxygen and respir...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) assess and educate a resident on self-administration of oxygen and respiratory inhalers; b.) obtain a physician's order for the self-administration of oxygen and respiratory inhalers; c.) care plan for the self-administration of oxygen and respiratory inhalers; d.) accurately sign in the Treatment Administration Record for the administration of oxygen; and e.) accurately sign the Medication Administration Record for the administration of a respiratory inhaler in accordance with standards of practice. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #51), and was evidenced by the following:
On 1/27/23 at 10:59 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #51 sitting in their wheelchair at their tray table in their room. The resident was being administered oxygen via nasal cannula (tubing used to deliver oxygen through the nose) at a rate of five liters per minute (5 lpm). The resident informed the surveyor that he/she administered their own oxygen which was usually administered at four liters per minute (4 lpm), but he/she will increase the rate as needed. The resident stated they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; a lung disease which impacts effective breathing), and he/she had been managing their oxygen for years. The surveyor also observed three respiratory inhalers on the resident's bed, and they informed the surveyor that he/she administered their own respiratory inhalers. The resident stated he/she was educated by the facility, and they had all their marbles.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #51.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in June of 2019 with diagnoses including COPD, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and personal history of other diseases of the circulatory system.
A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/22/22, reflected that the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of a 15 out 15, which indicated a fully intact cognition. A further review reflected the resident received oxygen while in the facility, and he/she had received oxygen daily during a seven day look back period.
A review of the individualized person-centered care plan included a focus area initiated 2/11/2020, for an as needed order for oxygen use with regards to shortness of breath from COPD. Interventions were to administer supplemental oxygen at two liters per minute (2 lpm) via nasal canula for oxygen saturation less than 92% of for SOB. The care plan did not include the resident self-administered their oxygen.
A further review of the care plan included a focus area initiated 3/24/2020, for COPD. Interventions included to educate resident/family/caregivers regarding side effects and overuse of inhalers and nebulizers; encourage prompt treatment of any respiratory infection; and give medications as ordered (i.e. nebulizers and inhalers) monitor/document side effects and effectiveness. The care plan did not include the resident administered their own respiratory inhalers.
A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) included the following physician's orders (PO)
A PO dated 3/27/21, to administer oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula every twenty-four hours as needed for SOB or oxygen saturation less than 92%.
A PO dated 7/2/21, for budesonide-formoterol fumarate aerosol 160-4.5 micrograms to actuation (mcg/act) (Symbicort), a respiratory inhaler, administer two puff inhale two times a day for COPD; rinse mouth after each use.
A PO dated 5/16/22, for Spiriva Respimat Aerosol 2.5 mcg/act, a respiratory inhaler, administer 2 puff inhale orally one time per day for COPD; two inhalation of one capsule in hand inhaler. Separate each puff by one minute for maximum drug absorption and effect.
A PO dated 1/25/23, for Ventolin HFA Aerosol Solution 108 mcg/act (albuterol sulfate HFA) a respiratory inhaler, administer 2 puff inhale orally every four hours as needed for SOB; shake well before administration. Wait one minute between puffs.
The OSR did not include a PO that the resident could administer their oxygen or respiratory inhalers themselves.
A review of the corresponding November 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the nurse was signing daily for the administration of the Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers. The MAR also included a PO dated 7/24/22 and discontinued 1/25/2, for albuterol sulfate HFA to administer two puff inhale orally every four hours as needed for SOB; shake well before administration. The albuterol sulfate HFA was documented as not administered for the month.
A review of the corresponding November 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) reflected the resident did not receive oxygen for the month.
A review of the corresponding December 2022 MAR reflected the nurse was signing daily for the administration of the Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers, and the as needed albuterol sulfate HFA was not administered for the month.
A review of the corresponding December 2022 TAR reflected the resident did not receive oxygen for the month.
A review of the corresponding January 2023 MAR reflected the nurse was signing daily for the administration of the Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers, and the as needed albuterol sulfate HFA was not administered for the month.
A review of the January 2023 TAR reflected the resident did not receive oxygen for the month.
A review of the Physician Progress Notes included a note dated 11/18/22, that the resident was seen by the Pulmonology Nurse Practitioner (PNP) and was observed with oxygen being administered at 4 lpm via nasal cannula. The resident was complaint with the Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers. The plan was to continue with baseline oxygen, Spiriva, and Symbicort.
A further review of the Physician Progress Notes included a noted dated 1/15/23, that the resident was seen by the Pulmonologist (medical doctor) and was observed with oxygen being administered at 4 lpm via nasal cannula. The resident was compliant with Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers and was dependent on oxygen. The plan was to continue Symbicort and Spiriva respiratory inhalers with albuterol sulfate HFA respiratory inhaler as needed.
On 1/30/23 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor observed the resident sitting in their room eating breakfast with oxygen being administered at 5 lpm via a nasal cannula. The resident confirmed he/she set the oxygen to that level and that he/she reduced the level to 4 lpm while sleeping. The resident stated the Physician was aware they administered their own oxygen, that he/she had being doing it for years. The resident also confirmed he/she kept their Symbicort, Spiriva, and albuterol sulfate HFA respiratory inhalers and administered themselves because it was pain waiting for the nurse to get it. The resident stated it had been forever since he/she had been administering their own respiratory medications.
On 1/30/23 at 11:57 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) who stated the resident was very independent and preferred to not have assistance from staff. The CNA stated the resident always had oxygen on, and that the nurse handled the oxygen.
On 1/30/23 at 12:15 PM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated there were no residents who self-administered medications and there was no medications in any of the residents' rooms. The LPN stated Resident #51 had breathing issues and was on continuous oxygen which she checked the setting. The LPN reviewed the PO with the surveyor and confirmed the resident received oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal canula which she stated she did not sign for the administration of the oxygen. The LPN also stated they received three respiratory inhalers (Symbicort, Spiriva, and albuterol sulfate HFA as needed), which she opened her medication cart and located an unopened box of Spiriva, an opened box of Symbicort, and there was no albuterol sulfate HFA which she stated the resident must be out of.
On 1/30/23 at 12:31 PM, the surveyor accompanied by the LPN went into Resident #51's room and the LPN confirmed the oxygen was being administered at 5 lpm. The LPN questioned the resident why the oxygen was at 5 lpm, and the resident responded he/she turned the oxygen to that level and both their Primary Care Physician and Pulmonologist were aware the oxygen needed to be at that level. The LPN then confirmed the resident had all three respiratory inhalers (Spiriva, Symbicort, and albuterol sulfate HFA) in their possession, and the resident stated he/she was aware how to administer their respiratory inhalers, they were doing it for a long time. The LPN turned the resident's oxygen down to 2 lpm and informed the resident she needed to call the Primary Care Physician.
Outside the resident's room, the LPN informed the surveyor she had not administered the resident's respiratory inhalers this morning that she was running late with medications, so another nurse administered the resident's medications. The LPN also confirmed the resident did not have a PO to self-administer their own respiratory inhalers or oxygen.
On 1/30/23 at 12:40 PM, the surveyor reviewed the MAR for the day which revealed the LPN signed for the administration of the Spiriva and Symbicort that morning.
On 1/30/23 at 12:45 PM, the surveyor reviewed the MAR for the day with the LPN who confirmed she signed for the administration of the Spiriva and Symbicort that morning and she did not administer it, so she should not have signed it. At this time, the surveyor and LPN returned to Resident #51's room and the LPN checked the resident's oxygen saturation level which was 98%. The LPN then asked the resident if he/she administered their respiratory inhalers that morning, and the resident confirmed he/she used the Spiriva, Symbicort, and albuterol sulfate HFA that morning. The resident continued he/she administered the albuterol sulfate HFA every four hours.
On 1/30/23 at 12:47 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Nursing Supervisor/LPN who stated the process for self-administration of medications was to first assess the resident to make sure they can administer the medication as ordered. If the resident was able to do that, the nurse called the physician who wrote the order for self-administration. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN confirmed Resident #51 did not have a PO to self-administer their oxygen or respiratory inhalers. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN stated the resident should not be touching their own oxygen, and the nurses should have signed for the administration of oxygen. The Nursing Supervisor/LPN also confirmed the resident's PO for oxygen was 2 lpm.
On 1/30/23 at 1:04 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated the process for self-administration of medication was to first assess the resident to determine if they were capable of administering their own medication. If the resident was able to, the nurse called the physician for an order and the care plan was updated to reflect self-administration of a medication. The nurse would follow-up with the resident to ensure they administered the medication as ordered and the nurse would sign the MAR that the medication was verified as received. The DON stated she was just made aware Resident #51 was self-administering their respiratory inhalers and oxygen. The DON confirmed there was no assessment or PO for the resident to do that. The DON stated for oxygen, the nurse would turn on the oxygen and the resident would regulate it.
On 1/30/23 at 1:46 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Pulmonologist via telephone who stated Resident #51 was very particular of their care and kept their respiratory inhalers in their room. The Pulmonologist stated that the resident was on continuous oxygen she thought at 2 lpm. The surveyor reviewed the Pulmonologist's note from 1/15/23 in which she documented the resident was receiving 4 lpm of oxygen. The Pulmonologist stated with the resident's medical condition, the resident may need at times an increased amount of oxygen which would not harm the resident. The Pulmonologist acknowledged the oxygen should be administered to the PO. The Pulmonologist stated she may have known the resident was administering their own respiratory inhalers because they were particular, but she could not recall if she wrote an order for self-administration of the respiratory inhalers.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the DON in the presence of the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Regional Infection Preventionist, Director of Clinical Services, and the survey team acknowledged Resident #51 was self-administering their respiratory inhalers without a PO and the resident was receiving oxygen continuously which was not being signed for by the nurses on the TAR and the order need to be changed from an as needed to a continuous order. The DON also acknowledged the oxygen order was for 2 lpm and not 4 or 5 lpm.
A review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medication policy dated reviewed 12/2022, included the procedure: evaluate resident using the Self-Administration of Medication Assessment form to determine if criteria for participation in self administration is met .resident self-administration of medication shall only be permitted upon written order of the physician; pharmacy shall label the containers with full directions for use including cautionary labels; the resident shall be taught to properly self-administer medications. nurse shall review with residents directions for use, indication for medication and possible side effects of medication .
A review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy dated updated 12/2022, included it is the policy and procedure of the [facility] to provide oxygen to the residents in compliance with their physician order as followed out by their resident's care provider .
NJAC 8:39-11.2(b)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 1/27/23 at 10:19 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #3 in bed with bed in the lowest position and padding on the bed side-...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 1/27/23 at 10:19 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #3 in bed with bed in the lowest position and padding on the bed side-rails. The resident responded to surveyor greetings, but then closed his/her eyes and did not further respond.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #3.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in July of 2019 with diagnoses including dementia, encephalopathy, major depressive disorder, and hypertension.
A review of the most recent quarterly MDS dated [DATE], reflected the resident had a BIMS score of a 1 out 15, which indicated severely impaired cognition.
A review of the resident's physician visits from the past six months revealed that the resident was last seen by the Physician on 10/31/22. There was no further documentation that the resident was seen by his/her primary care Physician since then.
On 2/1/23 at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director who stated one of his job roles included coordinating with other physicians at the facility for patient care. The Medical Director stated that a resident should be seen by their physician at least monthly.
On 2/2/23 at 9:52 AM, the surveyor attempted to interview the Physician via telephone at their office. The Receptionist who answered the phone stated the Physician would not be in the office, and the surveyor left a message to call back.
On 2/2/23 at 11:53 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Physician via telephone who stated he came to the facility two to three times a month. The Physician stated he did not document his notes from these visits on all his residents and there was probably missing notes. When asked how often he saw his residents, the Physician stated he was very aware of the regulations. When asked to clarify, the Physician stated he was aware long term care residents needed to be seen once a month and that he did not have a nurse practitioner who saw his residents. The Physician stated he saw his own residents and he was in the middle of a meeting so he hung-up the phone.
On 2/2/23 at 3:16 PM, the surveyor informed the LNHA and DON that Resident #3 was last seen by their Physician on 10/31/22.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the LNHA in the presence of the DON, IP/LPN, and survey team acknowledged the Physician was not seeing his residents on a monthly basis.
4. On 1/27/23 at 12:05 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed, dressed and well groomed, wearing glasses, with blankets to his/her chest. The resident stated he/she had a urinary catheter (a semi-flexible plastic tube that is inserted into the bladder and is attached to a bag that collects urine). The surveyor observed the urinary collection bag hanging below the bladder in a privacy bag, fluid was amber in color.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #29
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was originally admitted to the facility in January of 2015 with diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition where urine does not flow properly from the kidney to the bladder), major depressive disorder, and neoplasm of the prostate (cancer of the prostate).
A review of the most recent significant change MDS dated [DATE], reflected that the resident had a BIMS score of 10 out 15, which indicated a moderately impaired cognition.
A review of the resident's physician visits from the past six months revealed that the resident was last seen by the Physician was 10/31/22.
On 2/1/23 at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director who stated one of his job roles included coordinating with other physicians at the facility for patient care. The Medical Director stated that a resident should be seen by their physician at least monthly.
On 2/2/23 at 9:52 AM, the surveyor attempted to interview the Physician via telephone at their office. The Receptionist who answered the phone stated the Physician would not be in the office, and the surveyor left a message to call back.
On 2/2/23 at 11:53 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Physician via telephone who stated he came to the facility two to three times a month. The Physician stated he did not document his notes from these visits on all his residents and there was probably missing notes. When asked how often he saw his residents, the Physician stated he was very aware of the regulations. When asked to clarify, the Physician stated he was aware long term care residents needed to be seen once a month and that he did not have a nurse practitioner who saw his residents. The Physician stated he saw his own residents and he was in the middle of a meeting so he hung-up the phone.
On 2/2/23 at 2:28 PM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #29 who stated his/her primary care Physician did not come to see him/her very often, he was busy all the time.
On 2/2/23 at 3:16 PM, the surveyor informed the LNHA and DON that Resident #29 was last seen by their Physician on 10/31/22.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the LNHA in the presence of the DON, IP/LPN, and survey team acknowledged the Physician was not seeing his residents on a monthly basis.
A review of the facility's Physician Visits policy dated reviewed 10/2022, included .after the first ninety days, if the Attending Physician determines that a resident need not be seen by him/her every thirty (30) days, an alternate schedule of visits may be established, but not to exceed every sixty (60) days. A physician assistant or nurse practitioner may make alternate visits after the initial ninety (90) days following admissions, unless restricted by law or regulation .
NJAC 8:39-23.2(d)
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician responsible for supervising the care of residents conducted face-to-face visits and wrote progress notes at least every thirty days. This deficient practice was identified for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #3, #29, #51, and #55) reviewed for physician visits and was evidenced by the following:
1. On 1/27/23 at 10:59 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #51 sitting in their wheelchair at their tray table in their room. The resident was being administered oxygen via nasal cannula (tubing used to deliver oxygen through the nose) at a rate of five liters per minute (5 lpm). The resident informed the surveyor that he/she administered their own oxygen which was usually administered at four liters per minute (4 lpm), but he/she will increase the rate as needed. The resident stated they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; a lung disease which impacts effective breathing), and he/she had been managing their oxygen for years. The resident stated he/she was educated by the facility, and they had all their marbles.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #51.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in June of 2019 with diagnoses including COPD, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and personal history of other diseases of the circulatory system.
A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/22/22, reflected that the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of a 15 out 15, which indicated a fully intact cognition. A further review reflected the resident received oxygen while in the facility, and he/she had received oxygen daily during a seven-day lookback period.
A review of the resident's physician visits since January of 2022, revealed that the resident was seen monthly until 10/31/22. There was no further documentation that the resident was seen by his/her primary care Physician since then.
On 1/30/23 at 1:43 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated the Resident #51's Physician conducted all the visits for his residents and he did not have a nurse practitioner see his residents. The DON confirmed the last completed note from the Physician was from 10/31/22. The DON stated that the Physician was recently at the facility and could not speak to why the resident was not seen.
On 2/1/23 at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director who stated one of his job roles included coordinating with other physicians at the facility for patient care. The Medical Director stated that a resident should be seen by their physician at least monthly.
On 2/2/23 at 9:27 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident who stated it had been a long time since he/she saw the Physician. The resident stated he/she had seen the Physician in passing in the hallway, but it had been a while since they actually sat down with the Physician.
On 2/2/23 at 9:52 AM, the surveyor attempted to interview the Physician via telephone at their office. The Receptionist who answered the phone stated the Physician would not be in the office, and the surveyor left a message to call back.
On 2/2/23 at 11:53 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Physician via telephone who stated he came to the facility two to three times a month. The Physician stated he did not document his notes from these visits on all his residents and there was probably missing notes. When asked how often he saw his residents, the Physician stated he was very aware of the regulations. When asked to clarify, the Physician stated he was aware long term care residents needed to be seen once a month and that he did not have a nurse practitioner who saw his residents. The Physician stated he saw his own residents and he was in the middle of a meeting so he hung-up the phone.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) in the presence of the DON, Infection Preventionist/Licensed Practical Nurse (IP/LPN), and survey team acknowledged the Physician was not seeing his residents on a monthly basis.
2. On 1/27/23 at 10:52 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #55 sitting in a wheelchair in their room. The surveyor attempted to interview the resident who appeared to have some confusion with their responses.
The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #55.
A review of the admission Record face sheet reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2018 with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke), aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech), and depression.
A review of the most recent annual MDS dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 3 out 15, which indicated a severely impaired cognition.
A review of the resident's physician visits from the past six months revealed that the resident was last seen by the Physician was 10/31/22.
On 2/1/23 at 1:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director who stated one of his job roles included coordinating with other physicians at the facility for patient care. The Medical Director stated that a resident should be seen by their physician at least monthly.
On 2/2/23 at 9:52 AM, the surveyor attempted to interview the Physician via telephone at their office. The Receptionist who answered the phone stated the Physician would not be in the office, and the surveyor left a message to call back.
On 2/2/23 at 11:53 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Physician via telephone who stated he came to the facility two to three times a month. The Physician stated he did not document his notes from these visits on all his residents and there was probably missing notes. When asked how often he saw his residents, the Physician stated he was very aware of the regulations. When asked to clarify, the Physician stated he was aware long term care residents needed to be seen once a month and that he did not have a nurse practitioner who saw his residents. The Physician stated he saw his own residents and he was in the middle of a meeting so he hung-up the phone.
On 2/2/23 at 3:16 PM, the surveyor informed the LNHA and DON that Resident #55 was last seen by their Physician on 10/31/22.
On 2/3/23 at 9:03 AM, the LNHA in the presence of the DON, IP/LPN, and survey team acknowledged the Physician was not seeing his residents on a monthly basis.